• Proposal

  • OIP-58: Consider Hiring a Market Maker based on recent proposal

I guess I don't understand why Olympus needs to pay (either through options or interest free loans) market maker(s). As stated by Zeus, "listing is in my opinion is inevitable whether we like it or not."

Market makers can make money off of ohm tokens, regardless of whether the community "hires" one (as seen in the inevitability of listing). It would be unwise to just accept the first two proposals put in front of the community. Maybe we do want to incentivize market making faster than would happen naturally, but shouldn't we be conducting a formal bidding process? Is a zero percent interest loan the best we can get, or will market makers, knowing they will be making money of spreads, be willing to pay interest rather than (in the case of GSR) getting a >1 million USD loan for free?

Remember you aren't voting on whether or not to hire a market maker, you are voting on whether or not to accept the proposals from literally the first two market maker offers. Wartull's comment on the GSR proposal says they have been in talks with many market makers. I'd like to know if there was there a lot of negotiation done to get to GSR's proposal and what other market makers were saying in these talks, at least for some context if we are flat out refusing to have more formal bidding.

Where is the time sensitivity that is forcing one's hand? I get (especially in Wintermute's proposal) that the amount being loaned isn't a huge fraction of the treasury, but this should be done right.

    I am strongly against any deal which is not forced by code based contracts. If CEX is inevitable then they can buy the bonds or swap. Both option is beneficial for the protocol.

    I am in favor of hiring a MM to get gOHM listed. However, Dao should run a formal RFP and bidding process to select a MM partner to ensure alignment of Olympus value and vision. It is also a necessary process to engage and educate community members.

    If listing on a CEX is inevitable, an RFP should go out and the best offers be considered. I would not recommend going with two unsolicited offers as a competitive process may prove more advantageous to the DAO.

      As stated by Zeus, "listing is in my opinion is inevitable whether we like it or not."

      So why pay MM? We're not in 2017 paying CEX to be listed. OHM marketcap and volume activity will promote itself, as in the case of Doge, and Shiba Inu. Feel that OHM should focus on LP revenue than marketing, as show by Tesla success story.

      Rochambeau I think this is a fair point. While I agree that we should try and get an early start on our terms for MMs/CEXs, and the two proposals we've gotten seem to show respect for how we want to run things. I do also agree that we should make sure we are getting the best deal possible before agreeing to anything, especially taking into account that we don't know how different the market conditions could be by the time the terms are up.

        seems like a necessity for CEX expansion

        As Zeus pointed out a CEX listing is inevitable either we like it or not so we actively need to work with a reputable MM in order to make it happen on our terms.

        For me OHM is the token to list on a CEX given the simplicity and trading volume it holds.

        Given that Maven11 is already working on the staking feature and i quote :

        Together with the DAO, we are actively working on implementing an in house staking module into CEX's that will make it possible for OHMies to stake their fresh OHMs directly inside of the exchange with only a click of the button. (3,3) will become even easier for all of us and definitely cheaper and faster than the current options.

        It seems that we are all set and redi to rock 🙂

        Yes, however I would advise that we hire a top law firm to negotiate terms and formalize the contract. I think on contractual matters we are better of retaining a specialized law firm that will represent us in all legal matters of the sort. Because should shit hit the fan it will be better to have a firm that was involved in the drafting of the contract to defend it. We have more than enough funds in our treasury to afford the best legal counsel money can buy. Just like a fortune 500 company wouldn't solely rely on the opinion of its employees/shareholders when it comes to such critical matters.

        Second having a reputable law firm, represent us is a signal to the market and all our future stakeholders that Olympus is operating in an organized & professional manner, on a different level.

        Lastly commercial terms have to benefit Olympus's agenda in all ways, there should be no compromise or anything we are unhappy with. We are the future backbone of DeFi.

        Does it have to be either GSR or Wintermute? or is there a way to work with both simultaneously? Personally am getting better vibes from Wintermute, AMA? we heard from GSR, lets also give them a chance to say what they have to say.

          Voting YES…why are we not signing with Snapshot?

          Dom98000 I think this is a good idea! But would be up the community to decide whether or not to allocate funds to the legal process.

            SurfingChanticleer

            I have just been following this channel just recently. To your point, we at Bastion Trading, feel it would be quite a privilege for us to present a proposal to the OHMies to market make on CEXes - and join in on a RFP bidding process. Of course, to be fair, Wintermute and GSR are highly experienced trading firms no doubt who can get the job done.

            However, I have been thinking that our proposal would be more of a proof of work proposal, as opposed to receiving so much economics (a large notional of call options and a large notional of borrow for free) up front - in fact - a proposal that may complement the two current firms' ideas.

            I want to note that a RFP selection process doesn't even have to result in simply one market maker chosen for the requested set of economics, just like a in a IPO process in tradfi - all the bookrunners and underwriters share a fee pool and in most cases there's several firms working on a deal. I would argue that for trading - as for an issuer - its better to have many market makers competing on bid/offer, volumes, and positioning.

            As a brief introduction, Bastion Trading is a crypto trading firm, that has been trading crypto (trading arbitrage, market making, stat arbitrage) since 2017, and has traded billions in that time period. Currently, there's many other qualified trading firms in crypto with many different ideas and solutions (it can be overwhelming as well) - but well worth a look to look at the many choices.

            Since the proposal is seemingly live, I'll leave it brief here, and if all of you would like to see another proposal or eventually this all goes to a RFP, we'd be happy to post it in an appropriate place (and/or time). Thanks for reading!

                YES, but with a RFP to select the best terms for the DAO, no free-loan for the MM, and an enforceable on chain contract.

                Even if it were only for a few hundreds or thousands of OHM, Olympus is an on chain institution and we should dictate our on chain contracts terms.

                TheSkyhopper This is great, looking forward to reading your proposal and others from other firms.

                  I'm keen to onboard a market maker to help facilitate a bridge to CEXs, but as I've highlighted before: CEX listings introduces a risk of governance centralisation. I'm in favour of proceeding to vote on the offers that have been made thus far and discussions around each offer to be considered on their own merits.

                  We also need to take the discussion around the long-term impact CEX inclusion can have on governance seriously. We need to expect CEX's to have a say in governance and, as they are a valid participant in the crypto-economy, I think they should have a seat at the table of the decentralised reserve bank we've building here. Before we land a CEX listing, though, we desperately need voting reform to front-run large vote accumulators from usurping governance control from the community.

                  I'm cool with this but I have a few caveats:

                  1- We wouldn't be "hiring" a MM in my view. There's money to be made by associating with Olympus when it launches on a CEX. Most MM's will find plenty of incentive there without us adding payment. The GSR loan was already generous enough. I would instead spend the resources on legal or, if at all possible, smart contracts to govern the entire operation. Whatever terms we decide on compliance will be paramount.

                  2- As I mentioned in the previous GSR thread when discussing this: CEXs should have no say in our governance, at all. Zero. This needs to be written in stone, and heavily enforced. The gOHM pool they would be provided is not for voting but for the provision of a service to their clients, for which they will collect fees. In short, gOHM should be a product they sell and not a tool they wield. We should include using the gOHM for voting purposes as grounds for termination of the agreement, with penalties, a collateral or some other form (or forms) of guarantee. Governance is not yet on-chain, but it will be. We can't afford transgressions on this once it is, it could completely destroy OHM.

                  Yes, but agree with common sentiment for running a competitive process to find best proposal as well as getting external legal support to craft agreement.